Baulking Uffington Neighbourhood Plan
                    Baulking    Uffington                                                                                                                                             Neighbourhood Plan

Sustainability and Infrastructure

June 2017 - DRAFT Policies for comment

The DRAFT Sustainability and Infrastructure policies discussed at the recent Community Event are listed below. If you wish to comment or suggest changes to any of these policies, please let us know by 15 July 2017 using the comments form here or by email to communications@ubw.net  .

Policy 1 – Mobility and Safe Movement

 

S1A: All new developments should provide sufficient off-road car parking, integrated into the landscape.

 

S1B: All new developments should ensure safe movement within and between communities and facilities by creating safe pedestrian and cycle routes within the neighbourhood.

 

S1C: All new developments should avoid increasing congestion and pollution, or restricting visibility.

 

What is the point of this policy?

Since July 2016 there has been no public transport available in Uffington or Baulking suitable to support travel for work, education, access to healthcare, supermarkets or leisure trips. This means that working families are likely to need 2 cars which should be parked off-road. Roadside parking in Uffington currently restricts traffic flow and reduces visibility and this policy will prevent this worsening. Neither the school nor the church in Uffington has parking facilities.

The villages in the Plan area are comparatively well served by footpaths linking main housing areas to the amenities.  We are keen to ensure that these links are preserved and extended to include any new housing. This will ensure safe transit between areas for pedestrians and cyclists whilst minimising the need to use cars.

Any new development will add to the current pressure on the A420 and this problem will get worse as more houses are built in West Swindon, Faringdon and Shrivenham. Access to the A420 from the area is already limited to small roads with one of the main routes being only a single track road.

 

Are there any alternatives or options to this policy?

1.    What size of development should be subject to these policies?

2.    How could we actually create longer safe cycle routes within the local area and up to access points for the main strategic routes (the A420 and the A417)?  Is this realistic and achievable?

3.    Encourage car sharing rather than having a specific policy.

4.    Provide transport for those unable to drive and/or with restricted mobility (possibly part-funded by developers) and/or shared with neighbouring villages.

5.    Consider negotiating reduced rates for deliveries from larger supermarkets.

6.    How could we reduce risks resulting from road-side parking and congestion in Uffington? eg by creating a one-way system, and protected road crossings.

7.    Reduce travel to work by encouraging home-working and working from home by attracting local businesses to the neighbourhood.

 

Policy 2 – Flooding and Drainage

 

S2A: Development proposals must demonstrate that they will not exacerbate surface and groundwater drainage and flooding problems as identified by the Environment Agency and in local records.

S2B: Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) must be incorporated into development proposals where possible.

S2C: Developers must demonstrate that the base of any proposed infiltration system be at least 1m above the maximum likely groundwater level.

S2D: Sustainable drainage systems should seek to enhance water quality and biodiversity in line with the Water Framework Directive.

 

 

 

What is the point of this policy?

 

Uffington (and Baulking?) has in the past been susceptible to flooding and we need to minimise this in future and not allow new developments to exacerbate the situation. To ensure that where local areas are known to flood (through village residents’ observations / evidence), but are not recorded on the Environment Agency flood maps, these are recorded in the NP or by the Parish Council/Meeting.

 

To ensure that developers comply with the recommendations in ‘The SuDS Manual’ (CIRIA, 20158).

 

To ensure that all development proposals should be assessed against the Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and the Oxfordshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy to address locally significant flooding. Appropriate mitigation and management measures must be implemented.

 

To ensure that development proposals provide an adequate drainage strategy, including appropriate techniques to attenuate surface water run-off from buildings and paving to greenfield run-off rates.  Higher rates would need to be justified and the risks quantified.

 

To ensure that developments do not create drainage systems which degrade water quality or biodiversity.

 

Are there any alternatives or options to this policy?

 

  1. Remove this policy and rely on the VOWH planning process to ensure compliance.
     
  2. Consider including a policy which ensures that there should be enforceable lines of responsibility for the maintenance and management of banks, ditches and weirs

 

 

Policy 3 – Amenities

S3A: Communal facilities should be sufficient, safe and well maintained. They should be welcoming to residents and visitors alike and enable people of all ages and abilities to interact freely.

S3B: New developments should be located within reach of community facilities and services, and linked to the main ones (e.g. village store and school) with safe pedestrian and cycle routes.

S3C: New developments should contribute to the expansion of communal facilities proportionally to their associated population increase.

 

What is the point of this policy?

Amenities include public facilities such as shops, pubs, churches, cultural and sports facilities, open spaces and playgrounds; meeting places available for clubs, societies and private functions, and awareness of sources of noise, odour and light. This neighbourhood currently has high amenity value. The aims are:

1.    To maintain this high amenity value when accepting further development and guard against the loss of valued facilities and services.

2.    To ensure that occupants of new developments have safe and easy access to amenities.

3.    To provide good facilities for increasing numbers of visitors.

4.    To alleviate capacity constraints that could arise, irrespective of the size and location of new development, on the use of communal facilities.

5.    To ensure that developers make contributions (S106 or CIL) proportional to the number of houses built.

 

Are there any alternatives or options to this policy?

 

1.    How should we ensure that we can respond to changing demographics: e.g. increases in the numbers of elderly or disabled people, so as to meet their varying needs?

2.    How should we ensure that we can respond to changing demographics which may need different facilities meet the varying needs of specific groups such as young people, the elderly and those with disabilities. For example pavement provision within new developments and between them and places of public amenity, should be user-friendly to those with push-chairs, walking sticks or frames, and mobility scooters.

 

Policy 4 – Biodiversity

 

Policy S4: Public areas in new developments should be stocked with native tree, plant and grass species.

 

What is the point of this policy? the NPPF states (Para 109) that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:

 

·         protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;

·         recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;

·         preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and

·         remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate.

 

The Plan will support the work of local authorities and local community groups in protecting and enhancing the natural environment and biodiversity of the area. It should strive to make more green space accessible to the public (see Landscape FG for details), while, at the same time, supporting measures to protect rare plant species and habitats. Public areas in new developments should be stocked with native tree, plant and grass species.

 

Are there any alternatives or options to this policy?  

 

1.    We could remove this policy and not have any local policy and rely on higher level policies to protect our local environment.

 

Print Print | Sitemap
© Text Uffington Parish Council. Artwork:created by Bronwen Thomas, © Millikin/Parsons. Photos © Oldnall/Parsons/Lindo/Kavanagh